3 ms·
60% out of 200 studies is not all that good, really. It allows the experts to believe that if they're still in the top 25%, no machine can beat them (I know tha
by DeepDuh 14y ago
60% out of 200 studies is not all that good, really. It allows the experts to believe that if they're still in the top 25%, no machine can beat them (I know that this is not exactly what the studies say, but statistics are almost always being misinterpreted, so I do it here too).
The thing is: I expect Watson to perform significantly better than this. If it can beat Jeopardy grandmasters consistantly and if that technology is correctly being reapplied to the medical field, Watson should easily outperform anything we had before.
- sesqu 14y agoIt's worth noting that Watson didn't beat the Jeopardy grandmasters with accuracy, but with speed - not that that isn't useful in healthcare, given sufficient accuracy.